That Was Then and This Is Now.
InfoWars looks at Gulf War propaganda compared to today’s establishment push to go to war with Syria and Russia.
InfoWars looks at Gulf War propaganda compared to today’s establishment push to go to war with Syria and Russia.
Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or interference. Well, ALMOST everyone.
Probation Conditions in State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold- Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227
“You will not reference any of the XXXXXXXX-XXXXX family on any social media.”
I previously posted a press release on Darren Chaker, who reversed his conviction in federal court on First Amendment grounds. A Good Day For The First Amendment.
After corresponding with Mr. Chaker regarding my own First Amendment violations as well as numerous other violations in my case, I was enlightened further about our inherent rights. See Below
“Rights might be inherent, but ideas need to be taught.” Maida Buckley, retired classroom teacher in Fairbanks, Alaska
Focusing on the First Amendment issue, I see a few flaws in Condition 2 preventing referencing to specific people in social media: Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227
What if you want to criticize the police/DA, the judicial process, etc but cannot even reference to your case since it makes reference to the names of the people you cannot make reference to? Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government because criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1217, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23728, *1, 33 Media L. Rep. 2569 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005) Yes that is my first First Amendment case where I overruled the California Supreme Court. See also, https://www.scribd.com/document/3698825/Press-Release-CAL-SUPREME-COURT-Reversed-by-Chaker-v-Crogan
Additionally, you have a First Amendment right to re-distribute information contained in a public record.
For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814, 819, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13012, 7, 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,421, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) Typically, restriction of speech concerns a gang member not associating with other gang member; a child pornographer being monitored or restricted from the internet, defendant not speaking to victims, etc. The only nontypical First Amendment challenge relates to a defendant speaking or writing about the unconstitutionality of tax laws and was reversed, but prohibiting advocating tax evasion was affirmed. Speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. The burden is on the government to show that a defendant’s website is within one of the narrow categories of unprotected speech. United States v. Carmichael, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1270, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 1 (M.D. Ala. 2004) The Government would in its burden as it did not prove the speech at issue would be outside the scope of the First Amendment.
Suppressing speech rarely is justified by an interest in deterring criminal conduct, and in any event the justification “must be ‘far stronger than mere speculation about serious harms”’ and supported by “empirical evidence” Barnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S 514, 530-32, 121 S.Ct 1753, 1763-64, 149 L Ed 2d 787 (2001) (citing U.S v. Treasury Employees, 513 U S 454, 475 (1995))
Protecting Reputation is Not a Government Interest.
If the Government were to say, ‘the families have been through enough and do not want to cause embarrassment or harm to there reputation’ – such would not be a proper Governmental interest. Specifically, protecting ones reputation is not a governmental function unless it violates criminal law. United v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. (Stolen Valor Act held unconstitutional) “At issue here is the First Amendment exception that allows the government to regulate speech that is integral to criminal conduct. . . .” Id. at 819-20. United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 946, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377, 17-20, 2014 WL 2498131 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014)
Further, you have the right to attack people if you believe such behavior was unethical. See Wait v. Beck’s N. Am., Inc., 241 F. Supp. 2d 172, 183 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (“[A s]tatement that someone has acted . . . unethically generally [is] constitutionally protected statements of opinion.”); Biro, 883 F. Supp. 2d at 463 (“[T]he use of the terms ‘shyster,’ ‘conman,’ and finding an ‘easy mark’ is the type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and ‘imaginative expression’ that is typically understood as a statement of opinion.” (quoting Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20)).
Also, due to all of the publicity in the case, it is likely the names you cannot blog about are deemed public figures. Public figures are entitled to less protection against defamation and invasion of privacy than are private figures with respect to the publication of false information about them. Carafano v. Metrosplash, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1059, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10614, 1, 30 Media L. Rep. 1577 (C.D. Cal. 2002)
Purpose of Probation is to Rehabilitate and Prevent Future Criminal Conduct, Blogging is Neither.
Consideration of three factors is required to determine whether a reasonable relationship exists: (1) the purposes sought to be served by probation; (2) the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens should be accorded to probationers; and (3) the legitimate needs of law enforcement. (Citation omitted.) United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 1977). United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18287, 11 (9th Cir. Wash. 1981) See also, United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The conditions imposed run afoul of the supervised release statute because there is no reasonable relationship between them and either deterrence, public protection or rehabilitation.”)
“The Minnesota legislature delegated the authority to prosecute criminal matters to the county attorney, who was elected by the voters of that county.”
The Dahlens have pled guilty in an associated case for their role xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx, while another defendant, Dede Evavold, was found guilty as well. Inexplicably, Judge Karen Asphaug presided over all four cases.
A message left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office concerning the current legal situation was left unreturned. An email to Laura Flanders was also left unreturned and an email left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office was also left unreturned. The current Minnesota Attorney General is Democrat Lori Swanson, and she has held that position since 2007.
“I reported the corruption to her (Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General) and to the governor and to the Minnesota Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.” Hentges.
Hentges said he spent time in jail for failure to pay child support for a bill which had already been paid in another state and his trials in the Minnesota Justice System opened his eyes.
“I found several other things they were doing in the criminal justice system.” Hentges said. “I firmly believe that nearly every single case in the 1st Judicial District is fixed in one way or another.”
In excess of 7 YEARS of CORRUPTION in the MN. Attorney Generals Office (archives of corruption)
If it were not for the Independent Media, Hillary Clinton would be President and the tyranny would have instantly come to the surface.
The global elite are trying to make sure that the people never have a voice again. The Independent Media is 3-6 months away from going extinct unless the people rise up, once again like they did to vote for Trump, and stop the globalists in their tracks.
Here is a summary of the challenges, the dangers and what must be done to protect the only source of truth on the planet.
IMAGE CREDITS: NIHARB / FLICKR.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Google is running a silent campaign to make sure President Trump appoints as permanent chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) a candidate the tech giant is certain will never press an antitrust investigation of the company, after previously lobbying for a Republican favorable to Google to be nominated by President Bush as the third GOP FCC commissioner.
This is especially important given the steps the Trump administration took to advance a bill through Congress to cancel the FCC order on “Internet Privacy” that President Obama engineered in October 2016 at the urging of Google.
That the White House was not abandoning Internet privacy, but transferring the rule-making on Internet privacy from the FCC to the FTC was made abundantly clear by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer at the White House briefing on Thursday.
“The White House supports Congress using its authority under the Congressional Review Act to roll back last year’s FCC rules on broadband regulation,” Spicer said.
“The previous administration, in an attempt to treat Internet service providers differently than edge providers, such as Google and Facebook, reclassified them as common carriers — much like a hotel or another retail outlet — and opened the door to an unfair regulatory framework. This will allow all service providers to be treated fairly and consumer protection and privacy concerns to be reviewed on an equal playing field,” Spicer continued.
Infowars.com has reported the uproar attacking the GOP in Congress revoking the FCC “Internet Privacy” rules is led by leftist groups funded by Google and Soros.
The Trump administration appears determined to reverse “Net Neutrality” rules as well as “Internet Privacy” rules promulgated by the Obama administration FCC, returning Internet privacy regulation to the FTC, the agency properly tasked with promulgating consumer protection rules.
Industry insiders say one of Google greatest fears is that the Trump administration might open an antitrust investigation, like the antitrust investigation of Microsoft in 1998 when it attempted to incorporate its own Internet browser, making it difficult for users to load successfully competing browsers such as Netscape.
In a Department of Justice settlement reached on Nov. 2, 2001, Microsoft agreed to place restrictions on its Windows operating system, having narrowly escaped a decision by the U.S. District court that Microsoft was a monopoly that needed to be broken into two companies to prevent Microsoft from using ever again its market power to crush competitors, including Apple, Netscape, Java, Lotus Software, Linux, and others.
Interestingly the case U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) began as an antitrust complaint initially filed with the FTC in 1992.
Although the FTC is authorized to have five commissioners with no more than three of the same political party, at present the FTC has only two commissioners: Maureen K. Ohlhausen, a Republican appointed by President Obama in 2010, who President Trump elevated to be Acting Chair on Jan. 25, 2017; and Terrell McSweeney, a Democrat, appointed by President Obama and sworn in on April 28, 2014.
Behind the scenes, Google is quietly pushing for Ohlhausen, a life-time career bureaucrat, to be appointed permanent FTC chair.
Google calculates that Ohlhausen’s Republican views favoring robust open-market competition in a deregulated environment will be enough to get President Trump to appoint her as permanent FTC chair.
But Google’s true calculation is that Ohlhausen as FTC chair would protect Google from being forced to undergo renewed antitrust inspection.
Google knows that Ohlhausen dissented to an FTC settlement reached in 2013 to an antitrust complaint that involved various Google business practices, with the settlement requiring Google to share patents on critical standardized technologies needed to make popular electronic devices, such as smart phones, laptops and tablet computers.
A “puff piece” supporting Ohlhausen to be nominated permanent FTC chair was published by James Cooper, a professor at George Mason University, who published in Forbes on March 29, an article featuring Ohlhausen’s “Economic Liberty” agenda, as derived from remarks Ohlhausen delivered at the George Mason Law Review’s 20th Annual Antitrust Symposium on Feb. 23, 2017.
George Mason University (GMU) financial ties to Google were evidenced by a 2016 Campaign for Accountability’s Google Transparency Project report that noted four of five speakers appearing on a GMU panel on the global antitrust investigations of Google had received funding from Google.
That report noted that Cooper’s program at GMU has received at least $762,000 in donations from Google and internal emails published by the media showed Google lobbyists trying to place an op-ed he wrote in newspapers and suggesting panelists for a conference he organized, with the cash payment apparently made in return for Cooper writing “a raft of papers supporting Google’s position that it had not broken antitrust laws.”
On Feb. 23, 2017, Bloomberg BNA (formerly known as the Bureau of National Affairs) published an article entitled, “Ohlhausen Seen Auditioning to Keep Top FTC Role,” noting that Ohlhausen “has been speaking and tweeting a lot about her vision of the agency under President Donald Trump – a sign to some observers that she may be auditioning for a long-term leadership role.”
As hard as Google has lobbied behind the scenes to promote Ohlhausen, Google has worked overtime to smear Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes – a Republican nominee for FTC chair who campaigned strongly for Trump in western states during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“His appointment [i.e., Reyes] might be encouraging to people who want to see stronger antitrust enforcement than you’d normally expect in a Republican administration,” Seth Bloom, an antitrust attorney at Bloom Strategic Counsel LLC in Washington, told Bloomberg BNA.
On Jan. 29, 2016, Reyes joined D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine in writing to then-FTC chair Edith Ramirez, suggesting the antitrust investigation the FTC closed against Google in 2013 should be reopened, in light of antitrust authorities in the EU and India pursuing complaints against Google similar to the complaints the FTC investigated and settled in 2013.
On Aug. 17, 2015, Google lost a strong ally on the FTC when Commissioner Joshua D. Wright, a Republican, abruptly announced his resignation as FTC commissioner, a position he had held since January 2013.
Although he led the transition team of then President-elect Trump that focused on the FTC, Wright has faced criticism for his outright support of Google, as evidenced by a paper he wrote in 2010 that was highly critical of the prospect Google might face the type of aggressive antitrust action the European Union had taken against high-tech companies, including Qualcomm, Intel, and Microsoft.
Proposal: If the deficit is not funded, services to children need to be reduced by 8%. There are several considerations to be aware of in discussing which children no longer receive guardian ad litem services. Because of the Federal mandate for abused and neglected children in juvenile court, both congressional and legislative agreement would be required to remove this mandate. Additionally, the guardian ad litem is independent from the child welfare system and often may be the only person who is assigned to the child from the beginning of the case through permanency. Eliminating mandatory guardian ad litem appointments in dissolution/custody cases would be particularly troublesome in pro se cases where the parties are proceeding without legal counsel and would greatly complicate the work of the court. (Um, I don’t think so!)
Getting off a school bus, heading home for an afternoon snack and sitting down for homework.
McKenna Ahrenholz doesn’t complain about an average afternoon.
She has much more important ways to use her small voice in an effort to make a lot of noise.
“As early as I can remember I was in the system,” she wrote in a letter to lawmakers explaining her life while she was caught in Minnesota’s flawed child protection system. “I have been punched, starved and neglected.”
They’re big words to come from such a small person. At just 12 years old, McKenna is fighting for the thousands of foster kids across the state who don’t have a voice.
Because, in Minnesota, they’re not always given one.
“No one would listen that we wanted to stay at grandpa and grandma’s,” the letter continued. “The people who make the laws like yourselves need to hear us children who are the ones going through such a crazy life.”
McKenna and her four siblings have a lengthy history with child protection in counties all across the state.
Click to read more and view the video.http://kstp.com/news/children-at-risk-foster-childrens-rights-ignored-child-protection-mckenna-ahrenholz-childrens-law-center/4303701/
March 09, 2017 06:53 PM
State lawmakers moved forward Thursday on a bill they hope will give abused and neglected foster children a voice.
The proposal stems in part from a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS investigation that found examples of juvenile victims forced to fend for themselves, despite state law saying they’re entitled to a lawyer.
The piece featured 12-year-old McKenna Ahrenholz, who testified Thursday in front of the Minnesota House Civil Law and Data Practices Policy Committee.
Click to read more and view the video: http://kstp.com/news/minnesota-house-bill-ron-kresha-state-legislature-aims-to-give-voice-to-foster-children/4421376/
Minnesota, Jan. 2017: The Board that manages Minnesota’s GAL program has absolutely failed to address serious issues that have put children’s live at risk, caused children to be placed in the custody of unsafe parents and then be re-abused, and contributed to families being torn apart and children, estranged from parents…as documented in complaints raised by parents.
Families have been coming forward for 20+ years to raise complaints about individual Guardian ad Litems in regards to unprofessional conduct, and conduct that violates their mandated duties.
“Many concerns have been raised about the use of guardians ad litem. Most complaints have centered on guardian actions in family court cases, primarily in contested divorce actions. Complaints have focused on guardian bias, lack of oversight and accountability, inadequate training, and inappropriate communication between guardians and judges. Parents have also complained that there is no place to seek relief if they have a problem with a guardian.” GAL Executive Summary (95-03) February 28, 1995
By John Reinan Star Tribune November 26, 2016
As a district judge, Vicki Landwehr spends her days meting out justice. But as the co-owner of nearly 20 residential properties in the St. Cloud area, it’s Landwehr who’s on the receiving end of public scrutiny — and legal action.
Several of the properties she and her husband, Don, own have been identified by neighbors and St. Cloud city officials as blights on neighborhoods. Earlier this week, police raided one house and found a meth lab — the latest in a series of troubling incidents that have angered residents and prompted city officials to investigate.
City officials have met twice with residents to discuss the problems. The most recent meeting, held last week, drew about 100 attendees. The city is so concerned about the issue that it is now taking administrative action against the couple for renting the houses without a license. Continue Reading: http://www.startribune.com/judge-s-distressed-properties-a-blight-on-st-cloud-neighborhoods/403063086/
“I’m obviously happy that the complaint was dismissed. It’s somewhat stressful to have a complaint filed against you,” Landwehr said Friday. “I obviously had indicated from the outset that I always made every effort to make the disclosures that I thought were required. … That’s important to me.” (Interestingly, Landwehr was appointed to the Judicial Standards Board by Governor Pawlenty in 2008 and was a judge member through 2016. BOARD ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS).
Below is another complaint Judge Landwehr was obviously happy that was dismissed.
“Don Landwehr said he feels the city was not looking to punish him and his wife, but gain compliance at the contract-for-deed properties.”
Here’s an opportunity to meet Judge Landwehr and learn more about the local injustice system in St. Cloud.
The public is invited to celebrate Law Day at the Stearns County “Open Courthouse” event on April 28.
On Friday, April 28, the Stearns County Courthouse in St. Cloud will open its doors to the public as part of a Law Day “Open Courthouse” event. The event is being held to showcase the work of Minnesota’s courts, and educate the public about the work of judges, attorneys, law enforcement, and citizens in administering the state’s justice system. The free, open-to-the public event, will run from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The Open Courthouse event will feature numerous activities, including:
The Open Courthouse event is scheduled to coincide with Law Day, a national day set aside to celebrate the rule of law. Law Day underscores how law and the legal process have contributed to the freedoms that all Americans share. Law Day was first established in 1958 through a proclamation by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Congress passed a joint resolution designating May 1 as Law Day, U.S.A in 1961.
“The justice system truly belongs to the people, and serves to keep our communities safe, fairly resolve disputes, and preserve the rule of law,” said Chief Judge Scherer. “As our nation pauses to celebrate Law Day, we wanted to give the citizens of Stearns County an opportunity to learn more about their local justice system, meet the people that work in our courthouse, and find out about the legal services available to them in the community. We will even share many of the colorful and interesting stories that have shaped the history of our near century-old courthouse.”
The Law Day Open Courthouse event is being hosted by Minnesota’s Seventh Judicial District in partnership with Stearns County and local justice system partners.